COVID-19 - On the Ground

[Deleted User 318]

And to be fair, CNN doesn't pick up and cover some things that won't be reacted to positively by their targeted audience, either. I get that.

I actually disagree with this point. CNN has way more negativity in its reporting, and likes to throw chum in the water to make you watch. The reason why "Breaking News" is said every 45 seconds, and Wolf Blitzer is constantly out of breathe on even the most mundane things. I think CNN has less of a political leaning and more of a ratings leaning, and will do whatever it can to keep up its ratings. The reason why it gives equal time to unpopular ideas and pits two pundits against each other on something such as, "Putting kids in cages keeps America safe, agree or disagree?"

[ousdahl]

agree




What? Kids suck.

[jfish26]

And to be fair, CNN doesn't pick up and cover some things that won't be reacted to positively by their targeted audience, either. I get that.

I actually disagree with this point. CNN has way more negativity in its reporting, and likes to throw chum in the water to make you watch. The reason why "Breaking News" is said every 45 seconds, and Wolf Blitzer is constantly out of breathe on even the most mundane things. I think CNN has less of a political leaning and more of a ratings leaning, and will do whatever it can to keep up its ratings. The reason why it gives equal time to unpopular ideas and pits two pundits against each other on something such as, "Putting kids in cages keeps America safe, agree or disagree?"

I agree that CNN sensationalizes, and amps things up for dramatic effect.

But it's not the same thing as Fox's promotion of conspiracy theories, water-carrying for the President's (and his enablers') lies and misdeeds, and its outright falsehoods. Not to mention the race-baiting.

[Deleted User 62]

And to be fair, CNN doesn't pick up and cover some things that won't be reacted to positively by their targeted audience, either. I get that.

I actually disagree with this point. CNN has way more negativity in its reporting, and likes to throw chum in the water to make you watch. The reason why "Breaking News" is said every 45 seconds, and Wolf Blitzer is constantly out of breathe on even the most mundane things. I think CNN has less of a political leaning and more of a ratings leaning, and will do whatever it can to keep up its ratings. The reason why it gives equal time to unpopular ideas and pits two pundits against each other on something such as, "Putting kids in cages keeps America safe, agree or disagree?"

I agree that CNN sensationalizes, and amps things up for dramatic effect.

But it's not the same thing as Fox's promotion of conspiracy theories, water-carrying for the President's (and his enablers') lies and misdeeds, and its outright falsehoods. Not to mention the race-baiting.

You forgot sophomoric name calling....

[jfish26]

Or whatever it is you call what Pirro does.

[TDub]

The editors chose which "studies" to publish

That doesn't make the study any less accurate, does it?

1) Person hates CNN
2) CNN provides story of findings of scientific study
3) Person dismisses study because it was covered by CNN

This is stupid logic.

Do you believe the protests are not impacting covid case numbers?

[Deleted User 62]

Or whatever it is you call what Pirro does.

That "parrot scream" thing that her voice does?

[Deleted User 318]

And to be fair, CNN doesn't pick up and cover some things that won't be reacted to positively by their targeted audience, either. I get that.

I actually disagree with this point. CNN has way more negativity in its reporting, and likes to throw chum in the water to make you watch. The reason why "Breaking News" is said every 45 seconds, and Wolf Blitzer is constantly out of breathe on even the most mundane things. I think CNN has less of a political leaning and more of a ratings leaning, and will do whatever it can to keep up its ratings. The reason why it gives equal time to unpopular ideas and pits two pundits against each other on something such as, "Putting kids in cages keeps America safe, agree or disagree?"

I agree that CNN sensationalizes, and amps things up for dramatic effect.

But it's not the same thing as Fox's promotion of conspiracy theories, water-carrying for the President's (and his enablers') lies and misdeeds, and its outright falsehoods. Not to mention the race-baiting.

I would say CNN sensationalized the news.

Fox News sensationalized the fringe and makes it mainstream.

In Fall 2016, I went to my wife's family house after her uncle had a stroke and went into a coma. My wife and I stayed at the house for a week or so, and we helped the more immediate family (his only daughter and her partner), as well as helping shuttle out of towners from the airport and the such. One set of family members, who I never met or heard of before, did nothing the entire time, but watch white grievance youtube videos in the living room for hours. I mean, didn't look up, didn't speak to anyone, just on her laptop, watching these videos. I don't even think she went to see the uncle in the hospital. My wife and I were helping clean the house since the uncle was a minor hoarder (not dirty, but just lots of "stuff" that wasn't really useful. We spent 10 hours a day cleaning and organizing, while the woman spent all day on her computer.

The only time she spoke to my wife was at one point she said something to the effect of, "Can you believe what they are doing to us in Sweden?" My wife was very confused, and the woman said something like, "There are gangs of immigrants in Sweden just attacking white people for being white." My wife was confused what she was talking about, so the woman showed her a video of a mugging in Sweden, and said something like, "you being white, with a tank top, you would be attacked and raped in the streets in Sweden." As it was an obviously fraught time with the uncle in the hospital, and so my wife went off on her, explaining she lived in Europe for a while, and spent time in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, and none of it was true. The woman snorted and went back to what she was doing.

Then, about two weeks later, I saw Fox News doing tons of reporting on this exact same thing. Some random snippets:

"Sweden now rape capital amidst Muslim immigration"
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5248024459001#sp=show-clips

"Wheelchair-bound woman raped by refugees at Sweden asylum center, police say"
https://www.foxnews.com/world/wheelchai ... police-say

"Syrian suspected of terror for arson attack in Sweden"
https://www.foxnews.com/world/syrian-su ... -in-sweden

And so much that even Trump picked up on some of it, and confused both the Swedes and Americans:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/worl ... ation.html

During a campaign-style rally on Saturday in Florida, Mr. Trump issued a sharp if discursive attack on refugee policies in Europe, ticking off a list of places that have been hit by terrorists.

"You look at what’s happening,” he told his supporters. “We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?”...

...Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a White House spokeswoman, tried to clarify the president’s remarks Sunday, saying Mr. Trump did not mean to suggest that a particular attack had happened the night before, but rather was talking about crime in general in Sweden.

On Sunday, Mr. Trump offered his own clarification, writing on Twitter, “My statement as to what’s happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.”

In that story, the Fox News host Tucker Carlson interviewed Ami Horowitz, a filmmaker who asserts that migrants in Sweden have been associated with a crime wave. “They oftentimes try to cover up some of these crimes,” Mr. Horowitz said, arguing that those who try to tell the truth about the situation are shouted down as racists and xenophobes.

(Mr. Carlson interjected, “The masochism of the West knows no bounds at all.”)

Mr. Horowitz said, “Sweden had its first terrorist Islamic attack not that long ago, so they’re now getting a taste of what we’ve been seeing across Europe already.”

[PhDhawk]

NBER Working Papers have not undergone the review accorded official NBER publications; in particular, they have not been submitted for approval by the Board of directors. They are intended to make results of NBER research available to other economists in preliminary form to encourage discussion and suggestions for revision before publication.

Looking at the error bars, none of their findings appear to be statistically significant.

Much of their data is dependent on newspaper articles as to the nature of the protest.

Their social distancing and stay at home measures were based off cell phone data that only covers about 13% of the population.

They focused their covid #s on people who live in these cities. We were told repeatedly that protestors where from out of the city and out of state.

It ignores that the national trend using 7 day averages of daily cases changed from going down to going up almost exactly 14 days after the start of the protests.

It ignores that testing centers were closed in areas where the protests were happening.



The armed protests that took place weeks prior to the BLM protests also tried to block traffic. I'm sure if someone had posted a Fox News article saying that traffic and fear of violence offset those protests, they'd be rightfully laughed off the boreds.

This appears to me to be a way to sping this and make it a political issue.

ANY LARGE PUBLIC GATHERING IS GOING TO INCREASE COVID-19 SPREAD. Any argument otherwise is disingenuous.

[twocoach]

The editors chose which "studies" to publish

That doesn't make the study any less accurate, does it?

1) Person hates CNN
2) CNN provides story of findings of scientific study
3) Person dismisses study because it was covered by CNN

This is stupid logic.

Do you believe the protests are not impacting covid case numbers?

Like I said, perhaps the increased number of people gathered together gets offset by the decreased number of folks who ventured out during the protest. Our entire downtown area was closed during our protests. We had another group of a few hundred people who basically took over a main intersection in our midtown area. The result of all of this was that the vast majority of or city shut down for several days. Businesses closed. Shoppers and bar and restaurant visits ceased. Gatherings at parks ceased. All so a few thousand people could protest. Was the net result of those few thousand people gathering more or less than the net result of the tens of thousands of people who did not do what they would have done without the protests? I don't have access to any numbers to make an educated answer. I'd say only that it likely resulted in more cases of COVID than if the entire city was shut down and there WEREN'T any protests.

You seem to be perfectly fine assuming that those big crowds in the pictures mean an increased risk of COVID while ignoring any of the other factors because it fits your "protests = bad" narrative.

So yes, the protests impacted covid case numbers. But so did the number of people who sheltered at home during the protest when they wouldn't have ahd the protests not been happening.

[PhDhawk]

That doesn't make the study any less accurate, does it?

1) Person hates CNN
2) CNN provides story of findings of scientific study
3) Person dismisses study because it was covered by CNN

This is stupid logic.

Do you believe the protests are not impacting covid case numbers?

Like I said, perhaps the increased number of people gathered together gets offset by the decreased number of folks who ventured out during the protest. Our entire downtown area was closed during our protests. We had another group of a few hundred people who basically took over a main intersection in our midtown area. The result of all of this was that the vast majority of or city shut down for several days. Businesses closed. Shoppers and bar and restaurant visits ceased. Gatherings at parks ceased. All so a few thousand people could protest. Was the net result of those few thousand people gathering more or less than the net result of the tens of thousands of people who did not do what they would have done without the protests? I don't have access to any numbers to make an educated answer. I'd say only that it likely resulted in more cases of COVID than if the entire city was shut down and there WEREN'T any protests.

You seem to be perfectly fine assuming that those big crowds in the pictures mean an increased risk of COVID while ignoring any of the other factors because it fits your "protests = bad" narrative.

I think there are a couple things being ignored in this analysis.

One, there are two reasons you'd go out of the house. One is an opportunity that goes away, the other is a need that eventually needs to be filled. So, you didn't go play mini-golf, that's a lost opportunity, but you didn't go pick up toilet paper and trash bags...that's a trip that just got delayed, not one that went away. The former would work to offset protests, the latter would not. Waiting three days to get essential items doesn't go away, it just means more people were at the store after the protests instead of the same number of people spread out during and after the protests.

The other is that not all trips outside the house are equal. A couple that decides to go out is always taking some kind of chance. The couple going to Baskin Robbins to get some ice cream and then eating it in the park >30 feet away from anyone is a relatively low risk. That same couple going to a large gathering of people for hours with chanting and yelling is very much a higher risk endeavor.

I don't have a numerical value for how many of the former example it would take to equal one of the latter example, but I think it's pretty obviously true. There are lots of businesses/activities that I'm fine with being open, and others that I'm not. There's a big difference between buying a wrench from the hardware store and spending 6 hours drinking in a crowded bar. I think hardware stores should be open, I don't think bars should yet. Protests, or any public gathering like that check almost all the boxes for the exact things that are most likely to spread the virus. Arguments to the contrary seem silly.

The most important thing right now is that infections are going up and lots of things contribute to it and we should try not to do those things. Regardless of whether non-protestors stayed home, the people protesting (any protest, and also other things like going to a crowded lake to swim etc.) put THOSE people participating at a higher risk. I don't think the people partying at the lake of the ozarks should get a pass because people who were afraid of getting splashed or who hate flotation devices stayed home.

[twocoach]

Do you believe the protests are not impacting covid case numbers?

Like I said, perhaps the increased number of people gathered together gets offset by the decreased number of folks who ventured out during the protest. Our entire downtown area was closed during our protests. We had another group of a few hundred people who basically took over a main intersection in our midtown area. The result of all of this was that the vast majority of or city shut down for several days. Businesses closed. Shoppers and bar and restaurant visits ceased. Gatherings at parks ceased. All so a few thousand people could protest. Was the net result of those few thousand people gathering more or less than the net result of the tens of thousands of people who did not do what they would have done without the protests? I don't have access to any numbers to make an educated answer. I'd say only that it likely resulted in more cases of COVID than if the entire city was shut down and there WEREN'T any protests.

You seem to be perfectly fine assuming that those big crowds in the pictures mean an increased risk of COVID while ignoring any of the other factors because it fits your "protests = bad" narrative.

I think there are a couple things being ignored in this analysis.

One, there are two reasons you'd go out of the house. One is an opportunity that goes away, the other is a need that eventually needs to be filled. So, you didn't go play mini-golf, that's a lost opportunity, but you didn't go pick up toilet paper and trash bags...that's a trip that just got delayed, not one that went away. The former would work to offset protests, the latter would not. Waiting three days to get essential items doesn't go away, it just means more people were at the store after the protests instead of the same number of people spread out during and after the protests.

The other is that not all trips outside the house are equal. A couple that decides to go out is always taking some kind of chance. The couple going to Baskin Robbins to get some ice cream and then eating it in the park >30 feet away from anyone is a relatively low risk. That same couple going to a large gathering of people for hours with chanting and yelling is very much a higher risk endeavor.

I don't have a numerical value for how many of the former example it would take to equal one of the latter example, but I think it's pretty obviously true. There are lots of businesses/activities that I'm fine with being open, and others that I'm not. There's a big difference between buying a wrench from the hardware store and spending 6 hours drinking in a crowded bar. I think hardware stores should be open, I don't think bars should yet. Protests, or any public gathering like that check almost all the boxes for the exact things that are most likely to spread the virus. Arguments to the contrary seem silly.

The most important thing right now is that infections are going up and lots of things contribute to it and we should try not to do those things. Regardless of whether non-protestors stayed home, the people protesting (any protest, and also other things like going to a crowded lake to swim etc.) put THOSE people participating at a higher risk. I don't think the people partying at the lake of the ozarks should get a pass because people who were afraid of getting splashed or who hate flotation devices stayed home.

There aren't many grocery stores and hardware stores downtown. There are tons of bars, restaurants and shops. The vast majority of people who would have gone down there who didn't werent just delaying an inevitable venture out.

Yes, I agree that it would have been great of the protests didnt happen. It made me tremendously uneasy to see them happen over the fear of what impact they could have. It just wouldn't surprise me if it turns out they had a much smaller impact on COVID numbers than the overall reopening of our communities.

My last trip to the grocery store saw far less than half of the shoppers not wearing masks.

[seahawk]

Having done a totally unscientific "windshield survey" of my neighborhood, I'd say that the numbers in Florida have not been increasing due to demonstrations but to the huge influx of tourists into the Sunshine State and their crowding into restaurants, bars and beaches. Usually the rental houses will have 2-3 cars in front of them--this summer it's 6-7 each and there are noticeable parties--not of teens or college kids on Spring Break, but all ages of adults in gatherings that are well more than 10 people.

My area might be different from elsewhere in Florida, given that we're a largely "drive in" area from the Southeastern states, but I don't get that impression.

[PhDhawk]

Like I said, perhaps the increased number of people gathered together gets offset by the decreased number of folks who ventured out during the protest. Our entire downtown area was closed during our protests. We had another group of a few hundred people who basically took over a main intersection in our midtown area. The result of all of this was that the vast majority of or city shut down for several days. Businesses closed. Shoppers and bar and restaurant visits ceased. Gatherings at parks ceased. All so a few thousand people could protest. Was the net result of those few thousand people gathering more or less than the net result of the tens of thousands of people who did not do what they would have done without the protests? I don't have access to any numbers to make an educated answer. I'd say only that it likely resulted in more cases of COVID than if the entire city was shut down and there WEREN'T any protests.

You seem to be perfectly fine assuming that those big crowds in the pictures mean an increased risk of COVID while ignoring any of the other factors because it fits your "protests = bad" narrative.

I think there are a couple things being ignored in this analysis.

One, there are two reasons you'd go out of the house. One is an opportunity that goes away, the other is a need that eventually needs to be filled. So, you didn't go play mini-golf, that's a lost opportunity, but you didn't go pick up toilet paper and trash bags...that's a trip that just got delayed, not one that went away. The former would work to offset protests, the latter would not. Waiting three days to get essential items doesn't go away, it just means more people were at the store after the protests instead of the same number of people spread out during and after the protests.

The other is that not all trips outside the house are equal. A couple that decides to go out is always taking some kind of chance. The couple going to Baskin Robbins to get some ice cream and then eating it in the park >30 feet away from anyone is a relatively low risk. That same couple going to a large gathering of people for hours with chanting and yelling is very much a higher risk endeavor.

I don't have a numerical value for how many of the former example it would take to equal one of the latter example, but I think it's pretty obviously true. There are lots of businesses/activities that I'm fine with being open, and others that I'm not. There's a big difference between buying a wrench from the hardware store and spending 6 hours drinking in a crowded bar. I think hardware stores should be open, I don't think bars should yet. Protests, or any public gathering like that check almost all the boxes for the exact things that are most likely to spread the virus. Arguments to the contrary seem silly.

The most important thing right now is that infections are going up and lots of things contribute to it and we should try not to do those things. Regardless of whether non-protestors stayed home, the people protesting (any protest, and also other things like going to a crowded lake to swim etc.) put THOSE people participating at a higher risk. I don't think the people partying at the lake of the ozarks should get a pass because people who were afraid of getting splashed or who hate flotation devices stayed home.

There aren't many grocery stores and hardware stores downtown. There are tons of bars, restaurants and shops. The vast majority of people who would have gone down there who didn't werent just delaying an inevitable venture out.

Yes, I agree that it would have been great of the protests didnt happen. It made me tremendously uneasy to see them happen over the fear of what impact they could have. It just wouldn't surprise me if it turns out they had a much smaller impact on COVID numbers than the overall reopening of our communities.

My last trip to the grocery store saw far less than half of the shoppers not wearing masks.

Again, and as always, it isn't just about you and your community.

[PhDhawk]

My main point is, I'm not buying this whole, "The stuff I support, isn't the problem, the stuff that's the problem is the stuff I don't support. Now watch me twist myself up to come up with a justification,"

It's all part of the problem. Period.

[twocoach]

I think there are a couple things being ignored in this analysis.

One, there are two reasons you'd go out of the house. One is an opportunity that goes away, the other is a need that eventually needs to be filled. So, you didn't go play mini-golf, that's a lost opportunity, but you didn't go pick up toilet paper and trash bags...that's a trip that just got delayed, not one that went away. The former would work to offset protests, the latter would not. Waiting three days to get essential items doesn't go away, it just means more people were at the store after the protests instead of the same number of people spread out during and after the protests.

The other is that not all trips outside the house are equal. A couple that decides to go out is always taking some kind of chance. The couple going to Baskin Robbins to get some ice cream and then eating it in the park >30 feet away from anyone is a relatively low risk. That same couple going to a large gathering of people for hours with chanting and yelling is very much a higher risk endeavor.

I don't have a numerical value for how many of the former example it would take to equal one of the latter example, but I think it's pretty obviously true. There are lots of businesses/activities that I'm fine with being open, and others that I'm not. There's a big difference between buying a wrench from the hardware store and spending 6 hours drinking in a crowded bar. I think hardware stores should be open, I don't think bars should yet. Protests, or any public gathering like that check almost all the boxes for the exact things that are most likely to spread the virus. Arguments to the contrary seem silly.

The most important thing right now is that infections are going up and lots of things contribute to it and we should try not to do those things. Regardless of whether non-protestors stayed home, the people protesting (any protest, and also other things like going to a crowded lake to swim etc.) put THOSE people participating at a higher risk. I don't think the people partying at the lake of the ozarks should get a pass because people who were afraid of getting splashed or who hate flotation devices stayed home.

There aren't many grocery stores and hardware stores downtown. There are tons of bars, restaurants and shops. The vast majority of people who would have gone down there who didn't werent just delaying an inevitable venture out.

Yes, I agree that it would have been great of the protests didnt happen. It made me tremendously uneasy to see them happen over the fear of what impact they could have. It just wouldn't surprise me if it turns out they had a much smaller impact on COVID numbers than the overall reopening of our communities.

My last trip to the grocery store saw far less than half of the shoppers not wearing masks.

Again, and as always, it isn't just about you and your community.

But I can only speak to my experiences in my community for first hand examples. I dont live anywhere else.

Where do you live? Were there protests there? Were there curfews in place during them? What types of businesses were most impacted by those?

[PhDhawk]

There aren't many grocery stores and hardware stores downtown. There are tons of bars, restaurants and shops. The vast majority of people who would have gone down there who didn't werent just delaying an inevitable venture out.

Yes, I agree that it would have been great of the protests didnt happen. It made me tremendously uneasy to see them happen over the fear of what impact they could have. It just wouldn't surprise me if it turns out they had a much smaller impact on COVID numbers than the overall reopening of our communities.

My last trip to the grocery store saw far less than half of the shoppers not wearing masks.

Again, and as always, it isn't just about you and your community.

But I can only speak to my experiences in my community for first hand examples. I dont live anywhere else.

You think there aren't major cities with grocery stores and hardware stores, and drug stores, etc. in the downtown? We're talking about a nation-wide issue, not an Omaha issue.

And, as I posted, I don't think bars should be open, so that argument doesn't really move the needle for me.

[twocoach]

Again, and as always, it isn't just about you and your community.

But I can only speak to my experiences in my community for first hand examples. I dont live anywhere else.

You think there aren't major cities with grocery stores and hardware stores, and drug stores, etc. in the downtown? We're talking about a nation-wide issue, not an Omaha issue.

And, as I posted, I don't think bars should be open, so that argument doesn't really move the needle for me.

I'll leave it to the people who live in other areas to speak as to the impact of the protests there. Sure, it's possible. Whether you think bars should be open is irrelevant; in many places they are.

What are we arguing about here? Are we even arguing? We agree that protest gatherings would result in additional cases. We probably agree that people who chose to shelter in place during the protests would result in fewer cases. And we probably agree that everywhere that had protests will have a different net balance of each of these factors depending on the specifics of where the protests were, what limitations were put in place in response to the protests, what businesses were impacted, etc...

I am simply pointing out that a study that takes more of this into account instead of just "protests = more cases" should be looked at and considered. Not very controversial.

[twocoach]

My employer just announced that I won't be returning to my workplace until at least September 1st. I might need to invest in some technology upgrades soon. That's a long ways away still. My wife is going to be sick of me.

[PhDhawk]

It'll be interesting if there starts to be some push back to working from home. Mostly people have focused on the positives. But at some point there will be a realization that, a large chunk of square footage in my home is now dedicated to work, A large portion of my internet usage is now for work, How much am I paying for work equipment, hardware, desk, chairs, pens, etc. that used to be paid for by work.

In a town hall online meeting, the question was already asked about internet reimbursement since that's now a requirement...the administrators said that wasn't something they were prepared to do at this time. Wonder what will happen long term. It's not like commuting costs, where they can argue you choose where to live. If lots of people HAVE to work from home, what will become standard work contributions to do so. I mean, even if a company can now downsize to a smaller office building for example, are those savings going to be passed on to the employees?